How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[buckshot24]

Wrong.

The Earth is not a globe. It's an oblate spheroid. Seems you struggle with observable facts.

This is pretty ridiculous too.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is pretty ridiculous too.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

 

[abj13]

changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site

Of course there are consequences to these differing active site shapes but at the end of the day you have different shapes, and that's it.
.

These statements aren't just inaccurate, they stand on their own level of biological and scientific ignorance. Instead of manning up that you understand absolutely nothing of enzyme biochemistry, you produce some jibberish that contradicts tenets of basic biology and only reinforces how little you actually understand what an active site is on an enzyme. As already mentioned, the active site is an essential component of any enzyme. It is the location in which substrate(s) bind and subsequent rearrangement of the chemical structure, whether it is forming new bonds, breaking bonds, etc. Enzymes have varying levels of substrate specificity, which is based on the surrounding amino acids that form the structure and charge of the active site. If the "shape" of the active site changes, the function of the enzyme will change, whether it uses different substrates, changes the activity of the enzyme, or changes the reaction of the enzyme. This all goes into Michaelis-Menton Kinetics, you know about that right???

If enzyme catalyzes A->B, then a mutation occurs allowing enzyme to catalyze C->D, that's a new function. And guess what? The literature is filled with examples of this, as already posted (and you continually refuse to discuss):

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

Mutations causing new function. It is amazing to see biology in action and there are so many examples of this in other biological systems. I've already posted one review article discussing how these mechanisms of new protein functions develop into entire biochemical pathways. Evolution at work.

When are you going to correct your blatant attempts of misinformation in this thread?

 

[agent00f]

These statements aren't just inaccurate, they stand on their own level of biological and scientific ignorance. Instead of manning up that you understand absolutely nothing of enzyme biochemistry, you produce some jibberish that contradicts tenets of basic biology and only reinforces how little you actually understand what an active site is on an enzyme. As already mentioned, the active site is an essential component of any enzyme. It is the location in which substrate(s) bind and subsequent rearrangement of the chemical structure, whether it is forming new bonds, breaking bonds, etc. Enzymes have varying levels of substrate specificity, which is based on the surrounding amino acids that form the structure and charge of the active site. If the "shape" of the active site changes, the function of the enzyme will change, whether it uses different substrates, changes the activity of the enzyme, or changes the reaction of the enzyme. This all goes into Michaelis-Menton Kinetics, you know about that right???

If enzyme catalyzes A->B, then a mutation occurs allowing enzyme to catalyze C->D, that's a new function. And guess what? The literature is filled with examples of this, as already posted (and you continually refuse to discuss):

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

Mutations causing new function. It is amazing to see biology in action and there are so many examples of this in other biological systems. I've already posted one review article discussing how these mechanisms of new protein functions develop into entire biochemical pathways. Evolution at work.

When are you going to correct your blatant attempts of misinformation in this thread?

As mentioned it's literally his sort's goal to spam gibberish to frustrate ethical people. It's almost amusing that so many liberals believe in such a just world where total degenerates do not exist. As if because we won the fight against nazis/segregationists the earth is rid of conservatism or something.

 

[zinfamous]

This is pretty ridiculous too.

not once have you posited any evidence that contradicts any theory that you "don't believe." Until then, you haven't made a single argument worth addressing in your entire history of shitting diarrhea on these forums.

you're a useless sack of rotten potatoes, and I firmly believe that you are a serial child abuser spreading such ignorance. Prove to me that you aren't.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is pretty ridiculous too.

"And i would have gotten away with it too, if it werent for you meddling facts."

 

[Paratus]

Some people who shall remain nameless, (but science help us not post less), struggle with the concept that a theory can be both right and wrong. They want to treat them as binary - completely right or completely wrong.

Theories are neither. They are incomplete.

Isaac Asimov had a great essay on this subject called, "The Relativity of Wrong"

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov
I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

And yet is the earth a sphere?

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties - for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape.

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct ellipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the earth than the North Pole sea level was.

There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pear-like deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.

Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.

But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.

If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.

Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.

The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.

The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

 

[BurnItDwn]

If I'm not pretending, am I a moron?

Probably not, but it may be possible.

 

[buckshot24]

These statements aren't just inaccurate, they stand on their own level of biological and scientific ignorance. Instead of manning up that you understand absolutely nothing of enzyme biochemistry, you produce some jibberish that contradicts tenets of basic biology and only reinforces how little you actually understand what an active site is on an enzyme. As already mentioned, the active site is an essential component of any enzyme. It is the location in which substrate(s) bind and subsequent rearrangement of the chemical structure, whether it is forming new bonds, breaking bonds, etc. Enzymes have varying levels of substrate specificity, which is based on the surrounding amino acids that form the structure and charge of the active site. If the "shape" of the active site changes, the function of the enzyme will change, whether it uses different substrates, changes the activity of the enzyme, or changes the reaction of the enzyme. This all goes into Michaelis-Menton Kinetics, you know about that right???

Stunning. You're continuing with this dishonest strawman. I told you and explained why your ridiculous wooden interpretation of my words weren't correct but you barrel through as if nothing happened.

 

[buckshot24]

Some people who shall remain nameless, (but science help us not post less), struggle with the concept that a theory can be both right and wrong. They want to treat them as binary - completely right or completely wrong.

Theories are neither. They are incomplete.

Isaac Asimov had a great essay on this subject called, "The Relativity of Wrong"

There are definitely "right things" about this theory. The "wrong things" are the unreasonable extrapolation of the "right things".

 

[soulcougher73]

There are definitely "right things" about this theory. The "wrong things" are the unreasonable extrapolation of the "right things".

Because "feels"? Or do you have something scientific to provide?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Stop. Feeding. The fucking. Troll.

He's not here to learn. He's not here for honest debate. He knows less about biochemistry than I did at age 8. Either ignore him (as in, use the forum ignore function) or ridicule him mercilessly, but stop trying to teach him anything. You may as well give medicine to a dead man.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You may as well give medicine to a dead man.

Now now, the Senate hasn't voted on the BCRA (AHCA) yet...

 

[abj13]

Stunning. You're continuing with this dishonest strawman. I told you and explained why your ridiculous wooden interpretation of my words weren't correct but you barrel through as if nothing happened.

Throwing out big buzzwords like "strawman" make no contextual sense and your vain attempt to reconstruct your statements only perpetuates the problems discussed in this thread. If there was any semblance of objectivity and intellectual curiosity, you would have never said anything to "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site." Those are your words, not mine. You made the uninformed and outlandish claim and got rightfully called on your ignorance.

We are still awaiting for your discussion on the publications already presented to you that you continually ignore. A single mutation can lead to new enzyme function. But we all know how this will go down, instead of making any sensible statement, you'll run to your safe zone. You know nothing of biology and biochemistry, thus any statement by you on evolution or other science related topics is utterly meaningless. You've trolled this thread long enough.

 

[jackstar7]

Stunning. You're continuing with this dishonest strawman. I told you and explained why your ridiculous wooden interpretation of my words weren't correct but you barrel through as if nothing happened.

How does that feel?

 

[buckshot24]

Throwing out big buzzwords like "strawman" make no contextual sense and your vain attempt to reconstruct your statements only perpetuates the problems discussed in this thread. If there was any semblance of objectivity and intellectual curiosity, you would have never said anything to "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site." Those are your words, not mine. You made the uninformed and outlandish claim and got rightfully called on your ignorance.

Because that was never what that meant. You're lying. You won't listen because you want to try and discredit me by concocting obviously ridiculous interpretations of my words.

For this to be true, that I simply didn't know that changing the active site of an enzyme changes its catalytic characteristics then when I originally brought it up in response I didn't really think those e.coli who had their DNA polymorase III mutate to inhibit binding of the antibiotic actually happened. It's just a change of shape that had zero impact on anything else. The binding couldn't happen so those e.coli who had the mutation couldn't be targeted. You're being completely dishonest.

We are still awaiting for your discussion on the publications already presented to you that you continually ignore. A single mutation can lead to new enzyme function. But we all know how this will go down, instead of making any sensible statement, you'll run to your safe zone. You know nothing of biology and biochemistry, thus any statement by you on evolution or other science related topics is utterly meaningless. You've trolled this thread long enough.

There is really no reason to do so if you're going to be so dishonest about obvious things like this.

 

[abj13]

Because that was never what that meant. You're lying. You won't listen because you want to try and discredit me by concocting obviously ridiculous interpretations of my words.

For this to be true, that I simply didn't know that changing the active site of an enzyme changes its catalytic characteristics then when I originally brought it up in response I didn't really think those e.coli who had their DNA polymorase III mutate to inhibit binding of the antibiotic actually happened. It's just a change of shape that had zero impact on anything else. The binding couldn't happen so those e.coli who had the mutation couldn't be targeted. You're being completely dishonest.

There is really no reason to do so if you're going to be so dishonest about obvious things like this.

"Changing an active site's shape is trivial"

"changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site."

I've been waiting to mention that first quote. You said it. Nobody with an ounce of understanding of biology would suggest such things about the active site. This is exactly what happens when somebody gets caught saying something incredibly incorrect and their ego won't let it go. That's why you keep posting in this thread.

If you meant anything else with your statements, you would not use such definitive qualifiers like "never" or "anything other than." You said that changing an active site is "trivial." This flies in the face of the fundamentals of biochemistry, enzyme kinetics, and biology. What you wrote is incredibly black and white and instead of apologizing for your misinformation you try to claim it is everyone twisting your words. Nope. You said it with complete clarity.

Your posts perfectly illustrate the lack of insight or honesty that exemplifies the current issues with having intellectual conversations. Instead of having some inner humility and objectivity, you're going to run to your zone of ignorance once again. I am still awaiting a response regarding the previously posted publication that discusses how a single mutation leads to new enzymatic function.

FYI. It is polymerase. Repeatedly misspelling it multiple times is not something that a high schooler with basic knowledge of biochemistry would do.

 

[buckshot24]

"Changing an active site's shape is trivial"

"changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site."

I've been waiting to mention that first quote. You said it. Nobody with an ounce of understanding of biology would suggest such things about the active site. This is exactly what happens when somebody gets caught saying something incredibly incorrect and their ego won't let it go. That's why you keep posting in this thread.

Quote mining. You're boring. Do you have a shred of integrity or do you insist on playing games? I have no time for your games. If you think you have some evidence, provide it.

If you meant anything else with your statements, you would not use such definitive qualifiers like "never" or "anything other than." You said that changing an active site is "trivial." This flies in the face of the fundamentals of biochemistry, enzyme kinetics, and biology. What you wrote is incredibly black and white and instead of apologizing for your misinformation you try to claim it is everyone twisting your words. Nope. You said it with complete clarity.

You're just a hack who is trying to discredit me with absurd wooden interpretations of my words. Pure and simple.

Your posts perfectly illustrate the lack of insight or honesty that exemplifies the current issues with having intellectual conversations. Instead of having some inner humility and objectivity, you're going to run to your zone of ignorance once again. I am still awaiting a response regarding the previously posted publication that discusses how a single mutation leads to new enzymatic function.

Your posts perfectly illustrate that you have nothing.

I am not the issue here, I am not the topic of discussion, I could be the most incompetent idiot on the face of the earth and you're still left with no demonstrable evidence that your theory could work. You have blind faith and you know it, that is why you are trying to make this about me.

You've ripped my words out of context (quote mined) and applied the most uncharitable wooden interpretation on them because you know that all you have is blind faith.

If you want to talk about some evidence please provide it. If you want to only talk about me, then we're done.

 

[Engineer]

"could be"

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

 

[jackstar7]

Quote mining. You're boring. Do you have a shred of integrity or do you insist on playing games? I have no time for your games. If you think you have some evidence, provide it.

You're just a hack who is trying to discredit me with absurd wooden interpretations of my words. Pure and simple.

Your posts perfectly illustrate that you have nothing.

I am not the issue here, I am not the topic of discussion, I could be the most incompetent idiot on the face of the earth and you're still left with no demonstrable evidence that your theory could work. You have blind faith and you know it, that is why you are trying to make this about me.

You've ripped my words out of context (quote mined) and applied the most uncharitable wooden interpretation on them because you know that all you have is blind faith.

If you want to talk about some evidence please provide it. If you want to only talk about me, then we're done.

You can't let anger get you like this. Bad for your health.

 

[buckshot24]

"could be"

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

I knew one of you 2nd graders would latch onto that. Didn't you say the evolution has been proven and it isn't a theory?

 

[buckshot24]

FYI. It is polymerase. Repeatedly misspelling it multiple times is not something that a high schooler with basic knowledge of biochemistry would do.

Right, because high school students don't misspell words. Misspelled it twice, not "repeatedly" spelled it correctly too. You know you have no case when you have to latch onto this kind of insignificant nonsense.

 

[ch33zw1z]

troll troll troll your boat

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[buckshot24]

troll troll troll your boat

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

So its a theory. Maybe when engineer gets up off the floor he'll let us know.

 

[Engineer]

I knew one of you 2nd graders would latch onto that. Didn't you say the evolution has been proven and it isn't a theory?

Nope.